Breaking: Truck Plows into Berlin Christmas Market

[Woobie]

Yeah, but it'd take less effort and time, right? Easy-peasy.


Mom and dad will realize that torching houses is good and will learn, and then carry on in the example you set. I'm sure the children whose toys you incinerated won't be plotting their revenge or nothing...

Well, I don't want to have to talk a prosecutor about why I committed arson. Nor do I want to have to explain to God why I participated in the annihilation of an entire segment of His creation.

But yes, if I did that, I wouldn't have to smell all the reasons inside the house that people have roaches, wouldn't have to have them fall on me, and no re-treats.

 

[spencer rifle]

Perhaps some understanding of what the Quran actually says and how it is interpreted is in order. A caveat: the only acceptable language is Arabic. No other language translations are considered accurate. Since many of us (including Muslims) don't speak or write Arabic, we must depend on the interpretation of scholars and legal experts (know as fiq) to tell us what it means. There is considerable variety in fiq related to the Quran and the Hadiths, but most agree on the following, even if they don't act on it. Encounters with those who are not Muslims are to end on one of three ways:
1. Convert to Islam
2. Die
3. For people of the Book ( Jews, Christians) there is another way - become dhimmis (second-class citizens), pay the jizya (humiliation tax), and have your rights closely limited by your Muslim neighbors. This may include clothing restrictions, limits on when you can visit the public market, how and what you can ride, how and if you can maintain your house of worship, how high you can build your buildings, enforcing disarmament, etc. Infractions by any dhimmi can result in punitive actions against the whole community.

The history of North Africa, Central Asia and India is replete with massacres and conquests by Muslims, resulting in the death of millions of "idolaters" and "polytheists." Entire regions were depopulated and desolate. It started with razzias (raids for booty) and ended with complete conquest and the enforcing of Sharia. Such interpretations and actions continue to this day.

 

[T.Lex]

Perhaps some understanding of what the Quran actually says and how it is interpreted is in order. A caveat: the only acceptable language is Arabic. No other language translations are considered accurate. Since many of us (including Muslims) don't speak or write Arabic, we must depend on the interpretation of scholars and legal experts (know as fiq) to tell us what it means. There is considerable variety in fiq related to the Quran and the Hadiths, but most agree on the following, even if they don't act on it. Encounters with those who are not Muslims are to end on one of three ways:
1. Convert to Islam
2. Die
3. For people of the Book ( Jews, Christians) there is another way - become dhimmis (second-class citizens), pay the jizya (humiliation tax), and have your rights closely limited by your Muslim neighbors. This may include clothing restrictions, limits on when you can visit the public market, how and what you can ride, how and if you can maintain your house of worship, how high you can build your buildings, enforcing disarmament, etc. Infractions by any dhimmi can result in punitive actions against the whole community.

The history of North Africa, Central Asia and India is replete with massacres and conquests by Muslims, resulting in the death of millions of "idolaters" and "polytheists." Entire regions were depopulated and desolate. It started with razzias (raids for booty) and ended with complete conquest and the enforcing of Sharia. Such interpretations and actions continue to this day.

This is not entirely true.

What you describe was the traditional interpretation for hundreds of years. And, sure, in some places it still is. Like some Protestants don't allow dancing. And some Amish don't drive cars.

But, demonstrably, millions of Muslims conduct themselves in mundane ways that result in another option:
4. People go about their business peaceably.

 

[miguel]

So, again, I'm open to a better word to describe someone who says that all Muslims are terrorists or cultists. Or do you think that's an accurate statement?

Pragmatist?

 

[actaeon277]

Where's the anti-gunner outrage? Where are the calls to ban trucks?

 

[spencer rifle]

This is not entirely true.

What you describe was the traditional interpretation for hundreds of years. And, sure, in some places it still is. Like some Protestants don't allow dancing. And some Amish don't drive cars.

But, demonstrably, millions of Muslims conduct themselves in mundane ways that result in another option:
4. People go about their business peaceably.

That is how they conduct themselves. It is perfectly acceptable to support jihad without fighting yourself.
Center for Security Policy | Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists? Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress....survey-76-of-prominent-muslims-support-jihad/

Abdelrahman al-Rashid, a Muslim and the managing director of Arab news channel Al-Arabiya, stated that "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims"

 

[spencer rifle]

Muslim suicide attacks by Moros in Philippines were discouraged by “...the custom of wrapping the dead man in a pig's skin and stuffing his mouth with pork. As the pig was an unclean animal, this was considered unspeakable defilement.” - A compilation of the diary of Rear Admiral D.P. Mannix III.

 

[actaeon277]

Muslim suicide attacks by Moros in Philippines were discouraged by “...the custom of wrapping the dead man in a pig's skin and stuffing his mouth with pork. As the pig was an unclean animal, this was considered unspeakable defilement.” - A compilation of the diary of Rear Admiral D.P. Mannix III.

I think i read somewhere, that was a myth.

 

[JettaKnight]

Did INGO mirror the The Onion?

[h=1]Aunt On Facebook Casually Advocates War Crime[/h]

 

[1DOWN4UP]

So
I just read they released him for insufficient evidence,as ISIS takes credit?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Did INGO mirror the The Onion?

Aunt On Facebook Casually Advocates War Crime

Pffft, like anyone on INGO would own a Cairn Terrier.

 

[printcraft]

So
I just read they released him for insufficient evidence,as ISIS takes credit?

They didn't want to be bigoted in their treatment of their guest. Better luck next time.

 

[1DOWN4UP]

Berlin Police Says It Arrested "The Wrong Man": Truck Attacker Is "Armed, Still At Large" | Zero Hedge

 

[T.Lex]

That is how they conduct themselves. It is perfectly acceptable to support jihad without fighting yourself.
Center for Security Policy | Poll of U.S. Muslims Reveals Ominous Levels Of Support For Islamic Supremacists? Doctrine of Shariah, Jihad

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress....survey-76-of-prominent-muslims-support-jihad/

Tell you what. Rather than argue about "what is Islam" - we could trade interpretations and Imams until we're dizzy. Let's get pragmatic (which, while a great word, isn't the right word to use to capture generalized intolerance). Which leads to...

Abdelrahman al-Rashid, a Muslim and the managing director of Arab news channel Al-Arabiya, stated that "It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims"

So we need a sorting hat.

Is it your position, shared by several (many?) INGOers that we should close our borders to Islam? Is that the solution you would propose?

ETA:
BTW, since when did INGO worry about proof of guilt when dosing out lethal amounts of radiation? Or is that Putin....

 

[Woobie]

There's a pretty big argument within Islam about what Islam is.

 

[Kutnupe14]

There's a pretty big argument within Islam about what Islam is.

The same could be said of Christianity.

 

[Woobie]

The same could be said of Christianity.

Yes it could. And it would be funny to hear a couple of Muslims arguing about those differences.

 

[LPMan59]

This is not entirely true.

What you describe was the traditional interpretation for hundreds of years. And, sure, in some places it still is. Like some Protestants don't allow dancing. And some Amish don't drive cars.

But, demonstrably, millions of Muslims conduct themselves in mundane ways that result in another option:
4. People go about their business peaceably.

you're actually comparing it to forbidden dancing? Lmfao

 

[BugI02]

After reading myself in to this thread from where I last turned away (16 pages ago), it seems that there are two main camps, with various and sundry camp followers

There are those I will deem the Woobie-ish, who see this fight kind of like the broad based fight against communism in the 50s. The enemy is an extreme form of a more commonly held set of beliefs and has infiltrated a broad array of groups and organizations. Adherents to this extreme form need to be rooted out if already within the US and prevented from entering if beyond our shores. This group seems to seek practical real world solutions to the perceived problems and acknowledges any solution will be imperfect and cause some (or a lot of) collateral damage. They are willing to accept some level of damage to achieve their goals

The other camp I will deem the TLexoids; who see this fight more as a clash of grander principles, wherein we risk losing something of ourselves if we become narrow and bigoted and discriminatory. They are skeptical (perhaps rightly so) that any of the proffered practical solutions will or can achieve their stated goals and see starting down that road as more horrible, and a loss of our essential nature (as they see it) not worth what will be purported to be achieved

Of the two, I can empathize with the TLexicans but I cannot join them. From my limited viewpoint, I don't see them offering competing solutions to the obvious problems. Mostly they just criticize the possible solutions on offer as imperfect, unworkable, unAmerican. They function a bit like a conscience (in that they are reactive). I get what they seem to be saying about being wary of the 'dark side' but I don't see them leading us to solutions, only discussions

I think if radical jihadist Islam is not already a 'stand alone complex' it is certainly on the cusp, and an imperfect solution may be the only choice we have left. It's early yet, but this clash of civilizations feels like an existential threat, and we've already had our pearl harbor

 

[actaeon277]

Tell you what. Rather than argue about "what is Islam" - we could trade interpretations and Imams until we're dizzy. Let's get pragmatic (which, while a great word, isn't the right word to use to capture generalized intolerance). Which leads to...


So we need a sorting hat.

Is it your position, shared by several (many?) INGOers that we should close our borders to Islam? Is that the solution you would propose?

ETA:
BTW, since when did INGO worry about proof of guilt when dosing out lethal amounts of radiation? Or is that Putin....

Radiation is overrated.